And yet nobody will hear of this report, because its not sensational or dramatic. And because it lifts blame and gives us a mystery that can never be solved.
And that's why the news is a waste of time. It's just entertainment. It doesn't inform and it can't; it is by design a method of making money by gaining viewership, and that's why all credit it may have or get should be thrown out the window.
It is useless and that's why I don't watch it.
That and I don't need all that negativity swimming around in my brain. It breeds paranoia and irrational fear.
Not sure why some equate gun regulations to "ban z gunz". Having a national, shared, criminal database along with a shared one of mental stability and a stiffen on purchasable arms online and thru trade shows(gun shows) less through a policed route can help to dampen many of the 'in the moment' murders. Yes you'll still get blackmarket guns/modifications and even people who smith their own, but it's something, and it's not an out right ban.
Ah, but then there is part of the problem. I have all of the bolded parts as well, I live in a home with multiple guns (and my grandpa has EVEN MOR DAKKA), I know how to shoot them, and in part from my military obsession, I know areas to hit for maximum damage unarmed as well.
And yet, the only danger you would ever be in around me is if you try to hurt me, my girlfriend/wife,or my children, or try to rob me. NOTHING else will get you even so much as a punch, let alone shooting up tons of people. And this is taken to the extreme in that I wont even randomly kill people in games (ie, I wont run around Saints Row randomly shooting people [except other gangsters], and I will be a kindly dictator who treats his people well and has no death squads or imprisionment "for the lulz" in Tropico).
This is why I am always somewhat sceptical when people say "Oh, its just mental disabilities." True, but many with disabilities dont harm anyone, and in fact most studies show that those with disabilities are twice as likely to be the VICTIM of a crime, not the perpetrator. And just because they display "red flags" doesnt mean you can just throw them in an asylem, because they may not be a danger to anyone. Going back to myself, apparently I set off all kinds of Red Flags according to you, and I have access to guns, but again I wouldnt hurt anyone (though I do have a tendency to bite myself, but thats not that bad). And I plan to own a shotgun for self defense when I live on my own. Are you going to take my gun (my self defense) just because I happen to have a mental disability, never mind that I have never hurt anyone (and only minorly hurt myself)? I would just hide my disability if that was the case.
And gun control may not even help (my state of Kansas has a crime/murder rate lower than the national average, dispite having some of the laxest gun laws in the country), plus the fact that 99.9% of guns will be used in a totally legal way and never hurt anyone (that AR-15 he used? Most commonly owned gun in the country). Personally, I would say just stop covering them 24/7, stop giving out every last little detail of these individuals lives, and stop turning them into icons for other disturbed individuals would be about the only thing we can do.
If there's a problem with someone that they start shooting, odds are they've for problems instead of just one. Those problems stack up. Can games contribute? Maybe! But are they the source? The root? prolly not.
Homer: Do you want the job done right or do you want it done fast?
Marge: Well, like all Americans... fast!
I think the first thing we have to confront when dealing with the overarching issue is the cultural tendency to look for a single source, a single issue, a single reason. Particularly an easy one. Scapegoating is literally the easy way out: it gives us something to rail against and makes us feel better, and then we can go on with our lives. Because really, isn't hat the end goal?
Games have become an expedient way to do this. And that's the biggest problem of all. Because, as you say, video games may be a cause, but they are not the cause. And even as I write the word "cause," I sort of regret it. I suppose what I mean is a factor. And when they say cause, they mean a primary source. I don't think we'll ever prove that's the case. Quite the opposite, in fact. I think violent people are drawn to violent media. This has actually been suggested by the studies that people use to "prove" games lead to violence.
Yeah, plus a considerable apathy the people in charge of stuff have for others doesn't help at all. Who cares if that person as a problem? They're not talking about it. Look at them take abuse, look at them being outcast. They're not complaining, so they're fiiiine!
I know how you feel. I feel bad saying games are a cause, but I can't write it off as I try and keep angles open for the sake of reason/sense. Sooner or later, somewhere, some reason, it'll be a game that sparks it. It's highly unlikely that it'll be the lone cause, but the chance of it is so miniscule, yet there.
Honestly, I'd rather people vent on videogames than in real life as far as aggression goes. Assertiveness is still kinda important, though.
It's pretty messed up to say violent people play violent videogames, which leads to violence coz they're violent to begin with. One can only hope that virtual violence can contain them since it's unlikely the rest of society'll notice, and/or care.
Well, hopefully people can start to say, and be believed, that if violent videoames caused violence in real life, several generations would've been violent by now, and they aren't.
Don't give Fox News anymore strange ideas cause they will try to use it as "fact" LOL. Like a father who blamed Minecraft for his son carrying a gun to school? Yes MINECRAFT. What next Farmville promotes unsafe sex and teen pregnancy?
I think instead of Connecticut taxing games and assuming video games cause a problem, maybe they should, oh I DON'T KNOW...RESTRICT GUN LAWS!? I swear, how many more tragedies are we going to go through before politicians and the press realize that giving crazy people guns is the real problem, as opposed to a new form of media. It's funny, I've never seen people use cop dramas as a scapegoat for violence.
Or how about people start locking up their guns? Would this person who, on top of other things, had a predisposition to violence been able to get his mother's guns if she had properly and securely stowed them in a gun safe? Why should I, as a legal gun owner, pay for the gross negligence of others? I keep my guns in a safe and shit like this...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98944-Child-Must-Have-Thought-a-Gun-Was-a-Wii-Remote-Mother-Says
doesn't happen.
If you can't be bothered to open the link the father of a 3 year old left a loaded gun on a table and the mother blamed Nintendo for the girl shooting herself while she (the mother) was also in the same room.
Zachary Amaranth said:
I think the first thing we have to confront when dealing with the overarching issue is the cultural tendency to look for a single source, a single issue, a single reason. Particularly an easy one. Scapegoating is literally the easy way out: it gives us something to rail against and makes us feel better, and then we can go on with our lives. Because really, isn't hat the end goal?
I said there was no single cause for shootings, but apparently that's not enough? However, firearm availability and gun culture don't get a break because there are other factors, nor is your hyperbole and attempt to falsely equate the issue of firearms with the causation behind the act any less dishonest.
Also,
Why should I, as a legal gun owner, pay for the gross negligence of others?
Who's to say you're paying for anything here? I mean, his stance was on crazy people having access to guns. Are you admitting you're crazy? Maybe you shouldn't have access to guns, then. If not, then wherein lies the "payment?"
Fox gets singled out possibly because this is daily business for them:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.263910-Videogames-Cause-Rape-Author-Gets-Amazonbombed
barbzilla said:
as well as being a sociopath (from the reports, he could discern morality, and even wrote multiple essays on the subject, but he either didn't feel them or he didn't know how to act on them).
as well as being a sociopath (from the reports, he could discern morality, and even wrote multiple essays on the subject, but he either didn't feel them or he didn't know how to act on them).
Yeah sure, To me feeling your morality means having the proverbial angel (or devil) on your shoulder (conscience). This would be like that nagging feeling you are about to do something wrong.
Yeah, so was I. For an entire year, and to the point I would force myself to be physically sick so that I wouldnt have to go to school. And not once did I lash out or hit people. Of course, when I said "Try to hurt me", I meant Physically. Words are hurtful, but I wouldnt punch/shoot over them.
I said there was no single cause for shootings, but apparently that's not enough? However, firearm availability and gun culture don't get a break because there are other factors, nor is your hyperbole and attempt to falsely equate the issue of firearms with the causation behind the act any less dishonest.
LOL, wut? Let me paste your initial quote here and then I'll pick your argument to pieces...
I think the first thing we have to confront when dealing with the overarching issue is the cultural tendency to look for a single source, a single issue, a single reason. Particularly an easy one. Scapegoating is literally the easy way out: it gives us something to rail against and makes us feel better, and then we can go on with our lives. Because really, isn't hat the end goal?
So people in this thread are saying video games are not the sole reason for the shooting, but guns are the thing that should get banned, hyper regulated, ect. It is the one thing that THESE people are focusing on because it is, "the cultural tendency to look for a single source, a single issue, a single reason. Particularly an easy one. Scapegoating is literally the easy way out: it gives us something to rail against and makes us feel better" and they sure as hell don't want it to be games. That was my question, are you prepared to fairly and equally apply your logic or will you be like those accusing games of causing violence by ignoring their own stated logic and pressing their bias?
Who's to say you're paying for anything here? I mean, his stance was on crazy people having access to guns. Are you admitting you're crazy? Maybe you shouldn't have access to guns, then. If not, then wherein lies the "payment?"
1) I already pay for the gross negligence of others through some of the existing laws. Look up "U.S.C (US Constitution) 9.22-R". I can not add a 2 round magazine extension to my shotgun simply because some bureaucrat somewhere thought my shotgun was more dangerous than similar shotguns made in a different place. Here, I'll show you...
I own this shotgun, a Benelli M4 with civilian legal pistol grip stock. Because my shotgun is semiautomatic (meaning one trigger pull = one shot, regardless of if I hold the trigger down or not, and it ejects the empty shell/chambers a new round by itself) AND it has a pistol grip it is automatically considered an "assault weapon". Shotguns in the US can not have a magazine capacity of more than 8 rounds without special permits. HOWEVER, there is another law that says any imported shotguns that fall under the "assault weapon" category can only have 5 round magazines. HOWEVER (again), if you replace X number of imported parts with American made parts you can add the magazine extension because technically it will not be considered an import any more. It still has the same cyclic rate, it still shoots the same shells, the American parts are more likely to fail, and it only cost me upwards of $600 to get there. This was all done because people were/are all afraid of "assault weapons" and demanded that laws be put in place to "limit" them and to keep the oh so scary Russian made AK-47 out (but American made knock offs are ok). You know what is stopping me from taking the publicly available mag tube and popping it on? The fact that I am a law abiding citizen. So, yet again, the law hinders me while the lawless get to disregard it and have a more reliable firearm with the tube extension at a fraction of the price.
2) (S)He said,
"I think instead of Connecticut taxing games and assuming video games cause a problem, maybe they should, oh I DON'T KNOW...RESTRICT GUN LAWS!?"
There was no mention of mental health so I am left to believe (s)he simply wants to pass more restrictive gun laws in general. So I WOULD be punished for the negligence of others. Do tell how you see it differently.
Good luck with that. You sure as hell aren't getting mine because I've done nothing wrong. UNLESS, of course, you are prepared for video games to get the same treatment... (But then you wouldn't get my games OR my guns so there is that.)
as well as being a sociopath (from the reports, he could discern morality, and even wrote multiple essays on the subject, but he either didn't feel them or he didn't know how to act on them).
Yeah sure, To me feeling your morality means having the proverbial angel (or devil) on your shoulder (conscience). This would be like that nagging feeling you are about to do something wrong.
Yeah, so was I. For an entire year, and to the point I would force myself to be physically sick so that I wouldnt have to go to school. And not once did I lash out or hit people. Of course, when I said "Try to hurt me", I meant Physically. Words are hurtful, but I wouldnt punch/shoot over them.
Still your previuos argument makes no sense. You said that you would never hurt anyone unless they try to hurt you, and then say you got hurt and still didnt hurt anyone. contradictory statements. Or are you implying bullying doesnt go physical? because thats very wrong.
Good luck with that. You sure as hell aren't getting mine because I've done nothing wrong. UNLESS, of course, you are prepared for video games to get the same treatment... (But then you wouldn't get my games OR my guns so there is that.)
You asked what we thought was the best amount, not what we thought was realistically possible. I would have answered 0 if you asked how much drugs you want there to be in the world but im smart enough to realize that neither will ever reach that number.
Guns are weapons designed to kill. videogames are not. false equivalance wont help you here. There is a direct link between acess to guns and ability to shoot people. There is none between videogames and ability to shoot people.
You asked what we thought was the best amount, not what we thought was realistically possible. I would have answered 0 if you asked how much drugs you want there to be in the world but im smart enough to realize that neither will ever reach that number.
Incorect, I didn't ask you anything. I asked AdagioBoognish how many guns (s)he thought was "appropriate" because the wording in their post was intentionally vague. You just happened to cut in the middle of the conversation.
Guns are weapons designed to kill. videogames are not. false equivalance wont help you here. There is a direct link between acess to guns and ability to shoot people. There is none between videogames and ability to shoot people.
Depends on your definition of "designed", because in reality guns are only designed to accurately direct a bullet. YOU decide where that bullet goes. So YOU decide if the gun will kill. Much like a car is designed to use fuel in an internal combustion engine to propel itself. YOU decide where to drive. So YOU decide if the car will run people over.
As for "a direct link between access to guns and ability to shoot people" I can't really argue. This is why I advocate gun safes. This guy would not have been able to get his mother's guns if she had securely stowed them in a gun safe but personal responsibility, or lack therefore of, is being completely ignored in favor of blanket punishments for those of us who follow the laws.
However, I only bring up games because the same reasoning you are using against guns are being used against games. Think about it, they say that video games are designed to be "murder sims". You may say they're not, much like I say guns are not inherently bad, but they are being blinded by their bias. Are you?
Incorect, I didn't ask you anything. I asked AdagioBoognish how many guns (s)he thought was "appropriate" because the wording in their post was intentionally vague. You just happened to cut in the middle of the conversation.
Last time i checked this was a public forum. If you wanted to ask only him, you should have used a PM.
Depends on your definition of "designed", because in reality guns are only designed to accurately direct a bullet. YOU decide where that bullet goes. So YOU decide if the gun will kill. Much like a car is designed to use fuel in an internal combustion engine to propel itself. YOU decide where to drive. So YOU decide if the car will run people over.
As for "a direct link between access to guns and ability to shoot people" I can't really argue. This is why I advocate gun safes. This guy would not have been able to get his mother's guns if she had securely stowed them in a gun safe but personal responsibility, or lack therefore of, is being completely ignored in favor of blanket punishments for those of us who follow the laws.
However, I only bring up games because the same reasoning you are using against guns are being used against games. Think about it, they say that video games are designed to be "murder sims". You may say they're not, much like I say guns are not inherently bad, but they are being blinded by their bias. Are you?
The purpose of a gun is to shoot high velocity lead projectiles. The purpose of shooting high velocity lead projectiles are to kill people. Thats why they were invented for and that is their primary usage. Especially ones like in picture you posted which are not fit for target shooting or hunting to begin with.
Yes, humans aim it, just like they do with many other things we created. That does not make humans - weapons. No, guns are weapons, not humans.
I agree that personal responsibility is important, however "following the law" is not enough justification in some eyes, for we think that the laws are not correct to begin with.
No. There is a difference between a gun and a videogame. Mainly that one can kill people while other cant. You are using false equivalence (just like the people saying that games are murder sims) and then claim that my argument is somehow invalid because of that.
The last time I checked I had quoted the poster to whom I had directed my inquiry. If everyone had their discussions in PM then no one would see the myriad of opinions being expressed. You simply saw something you felt strongly about and decided to reply because you needed to make your point.
The purpose of a gun is to shoot high velocity lead projectiles.
False. By this these very literal, and factual, descriptions a "high velocity lead projectile" is designed to be as aerodynamic as possible to facilitate in the super-sonic flight achieved when working in conjunction with the appropriate firearm.
Thats why they were invented for and that is their primary usage.
The first recorded "firearms" were in China. They were used as volley weapons as they were so inaccurate they literally could not be used for anything else. However, as technology progressed they were primarily used for hunting. Until, as in Europe (which most people don't know that this is why Europe is so anti-gun) peasants became angered at their monarchs and turned their very crude hunting "rifles" (I use that term loosely as they were technically not rifles, but smooth bore bipod/tripod assisted guns.) against the king's knights. A knight was a very heavily armored and well trained combatant that used to find no trouble in quelling peasants. That is until guns allowed untrained peasants to even the playing field. Monarchs then took drastic steps to limit the availability of firearms to the populous in order to preserve the monarchy. Thus, you end up with current day anti-gun Europe.
Especially ones like in picture you posted which are not fit for target shooting or hunting to begin with.
It is a semi-automatic shotgun capable of firing all manners of shells. Just like the ones sold to trap/skeet shooters. Just like the ones sold to those who hunt birds. Just like the ones sold to those who hunt larger game with shotguns. It has a chrome lined barrel to facilitate lead shot for normal game and steel shot for water foul (steel shot required by federal law to hunt water foul, not required for all shotguns to have it).
I routinely shoot trap with it, and I use it when I get the chance to do some small game hunting. The only difference is that it has a pistol grip, which I find more ergonomic, and the fact that it has the moniker "assault weapon" attached to it so people like you will look at it and say they, "are not fit for target shooting or hunting to begin with."
Yes, humans aim it, just like they do with many other things we created. That does not make humans - weapons. No, guns are weapons, not humans.
A gun is a tool. If someone uses a hammer to kill someone, we blame the person. If someone uses a knife to kill someone, we blame the person. If someone uses a baseball bat to kill someone, we blame the person. If someone uses a gun to kill someone, we blame the gun...? Humans are the driving force behind the action so, yes, humans are the weapon. I don't know about you but I have yet to see a gun jump up and start shooting people because someone pissed it off, or at all for that matter.
I agree that personal responsibility is important, however "following the law" is not enough justification in some eyes, for we think that the laws are not correct to begin with.
And most of the time, as you have proven. Those same people are grossly misinformed about the issues at hand. At least do some research for yourself and see just how many gun crimes could have been prevented if the gun owner had exercised personal responsibility. Then, try and think about it from the other extreme. How many gun crimes could have been prevented if more people were carrying concealed firearms?
No. There is a difference between a gun and a videogame. Mainly that one can kill people while other cant. You are using false equivalence (just like the people saying that games are murder sims) and then claim that my argument is somehow invalid because of that.
Incorrect, I'm saying it's the same argument. You can yell until you are blue in the face that games aren't "murder sims" and "porn sims" and all of the other monikers people like Fox news likes to throw around, but until they stop being against it on principle and actually look at what they are critiquing you will always have people saying Mass Effect was a "porn sim" and the like.
The last time I checked I had quoted the poster to whom I had directed my inquiry. If everyone had their discussions in PM then no one would see the myriad of opinions being expressed. You simply saw something you felt strongly about and decided to reply because you needed to make your point.
You made it on open forum, open to anyone to express his opinion about your statements/questions. I did.
False. By this these very literal, and factual, descriptions a "high velocity lead projectile" is designed to be as aerodynamic as possible to facilitate in the super-sonic flight achieved when working in conjunction with the appropriate firearm.
Your still talking about design when im talking about purpose.
The first recorded "firearms" were in China. They were used as volley weapons as they were so inaccurate they literally could not be used for anything else. However, as technology progressed they were primarily used for hunting. Until, as in Europe (which most people don't know that this is why Europe is so anti-gun) peasants became angered at their monarchs and turned their very crude hunting "rifles" (I use that term loosely as they were technically not rifles, but smooth bore bipod/tripod assisted guns.) against the king's knights. A knight was a very heavily armored and well trained combatant that used to find no trouble in quelling peasants. That is until guns allowed untrained peasants to even the playing field. Monarchs then took drastic steps to limit the availability of firearms to the populous in order to preserve the monarchy. Thus, you end up with current day anti-gun Europe.
Yes, china invented firearms in a very strange form, but Most prototypes arent perfect. So peasants started shotting people they didnt like, and their guns were taken away, sounds very closely to modern day shootings to me.
Don't talk about things you don't know about.
It is a semi-automatic shotgun capable of firing all manners of shells. Just like the ones sold to trap/skeet shooters. Just like the ones sold to those who hunt birds. Just like the ones sold to those who hunt larger game with shotguns. It has a chrome lined barrel to facilitate lead shot for normal game and steel shot for water foul (steel shot required by federal law to hunt water foul, not required for all shotguns to have it).
I routinely shoot trap with it, and I use it when I get the chance to do some small game hunting. The only difference is that it has a pistol grip, which I find more ergonomic, and the fact that it has the moniker "assault weapon" attached to it so people like you will look at it and say they, "are not fit for target shooting or hunting to begin with."
Your shooting small gain with a automatic shotgun.
Yeah i dont even need to comment on that.
A gun is a tool. If someone uses a hammer to kill someone, we blame the person. If someone uses a knife to kill someone, we blame the person. If someone uses a baseball bat to kill someone, we blame the person. If someone uses a gun to kill someone, we blame the gun...? Humans are the driving force behind the action so, yes, humans are the weapon. I don't know about you but I have yet to see a gun jump up and start shooting people because someone pissed it off, or at all for that matter.
A gun is a tool made for a purpose of killing. If somone kills a person with it we blame the killer, but we still realize he has used a weapon. Hammer, knife and baseball bat main purpose is not killing. A good example was given with cars. Cars can kill people. What we do? we regualte them. very strictly, with ability to check up on it any time police wants. What we do with guns? oh no criminal record all right heres your gun.
How many gun crimes could have been prevented if more people were carrying concealed firearms?
None. Carrying concealed weapon does not prevent gun crimes. Carrying weapons openly may be deterrant to some, but concealed ones do not do anything. Unless you mean using those weapons to shoot the perpetrator, in which case crime has happened already anyway so no, your not stopping it, your only reacting to it.
Incorrect, I'm saying it's the same argument. You can yell until you are blue in the face that games aren't "murder sims" and "porn sims" and all of the other monikers people like Fox news likes to throw around, but until they stop being against it on principle and actually look at what they are critiquing you will always have people saying Mass Effect was a "porn sim" and the like.
Its not because videogames argument uses logical falacies as the grounds to stand on while guns argument does not (at least for the most part).
People talking logical fallacies have no bearing on what actually happens (unless you mean they influence people to kill gamers for "palying murder sims", which is another problem but not related to our current argument).
Saying that gun crimes are caused by gun availability and saying that gun crimes are caused by videogames is not the same argument. One has a direct link, the other only fallacies and research proving otherwise.
It's purpose is what it's designed to do... So a "high velocity" cartridge's purpose is to be used in conjunction with a firearm to project a bullet at super-sonic speed to accurately place the bullet at a desired point.
Yes, china invented firearms in a very strange form, but Most prototypes arent perfect. So peasants started shotting people they didnt like, and their guns were taken away, sounds very closely to modern day shootings to me.
Except these people were using their firearms for hunting until the monarch went too far. Ya know, razing villages, raping their families, starving their children. Monarchs just didn't want the playing field to be fair so their knights could continue to run people through with impunity. Kindda like the shit that had the US colonies rebelling against England's monarch back in the day. The colonies also used their hunting firearms.
Your shooting small gain with a automatic shotgun.
Yeah i dont even need to comment on that.
Look up the word "semi-automatic". I'm serious. Become informed because at this point you are not, and it is blatantly obvious. The only automatic shotgun I'm aware of in the world is the AA12 and that thing is not available for legal civilian ownership.
So explain those guns made specifically for match shooting. Such as in the Olympics...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_at_the_Summer_Olympics (list of events)
Or how most civilian guns never kill, much less get pointed at, a human being.
A gun can be used to kill, but that is not all it can do.
If somone kills a person with it we blame the killer, but we still realize he has used a weapon. Hammer, knife and baseball bat main purpose is not killing. A good example was given with cars. Cars can kill people. What we do? we regualte them. very strictly, with ability to check up on it any time police wants. What we do with guns? oh no criminal record all right heres your gun.
So explain to me this "very strict" regulation you speak of. Because the cars themselves have to adhere to US DOT (Department of Transportation) standards. Firearms have to adhere to the USC (US Constitution) and the Gun Control Act of 1968, and that is just the safety standards (there are more laws that limit firearms in one way or another, such as my beloved USC 9.22-R). Police do not have the ability to "check up" on a car any time they want. If they can safely get the plate they can get what is in the system, but they can do that for the federally required serial number on firearms too. An officer can not stop a vehicle without reasonable cause. You know what reasonable cause an officer needs to have to stop you, secure a firearm you are carrying legally, and run your information? None, because it is the person carrying responsibility to keep their hands in view and declare that they are carrying a firearm if a law enforcement official so much as walks up to you to say "hi". The officer then pats you down, secures the firearm, runs your ID and serial number of the gun just because. Can you imagine the shitstorm if cops just started pulling people over and saying, "Yeah, you did nothing wrong. I just want to make sure you can drive this car."
As for "oh no criminal record all right heres your gun." Your ignorance on the subject matter is showing again. You must pass a federal background check, meet the age requirement for the firearm (18 for long guns, 21 for handguns), meet state requirements if applicable, and of course actually pay for the thing. You really need to do some research bud, if for no other reason than to have stronger points.
None. Carrying concealed weapon does not prevent gun crimes. Carrying weapons openly may be deterrant to some, but concealed ones do not do anything.
I asked could. As in if the situation went to the other side of the spectrum. If one out of three people were legally caring firearms in the US do you really think that would have no affect on crime in the form of crime prevention? You know, criminals stopping and saying, " I have a 1/3 chance of getting shot, do I really want to do this? Am I feeling lucky?"
Unless you mean using those weapons to shoot the perpetrator, in which case crime has happened already anyway so no, your not stopping it, your only reacting to it.
If the crime was going to be a rape or a murder the gun would have stopped it, no? If the crime was going to be a shooting spree the gun would have stopped it, no? If cops, or armed citizens, had been at the elementary, this fucker walked in with his guns, and he was shot to death would the headline read "School Shooting Massacre" or "Gunman Slain Before School Shooting Spree"?
And you heard it here first folks! Cops do not stop crime, they only react to it. To be blunt, a dead criminal commits no more crimes.
Its not because videogames argument uses logical falacies as the grounds to stand on while guns argument does not (at least for the most part).
People talking logical fallacies have no bearing on what actually happens (unless you mean they influence people to kill gamers for "palying murder sims", which is another problem but not related to our current argument).
Saying that gun crimes are caused by gun availability and saying that gun crimes are caused by videogames is not the same argument. One has a direct link, the other only fallacies and research proving otherwise.
"You can yell until you are blue in the face that games aren't "murder sims" and "porn sims" and all of the other monikers people like Fox news likes to throw around, but until they stop being against it on principle and actually look at what they are critiquing you will always have people saying Mass Effect was a "porn sim" and the like."
You have proven my point wonderfully. You are so fanatically against guns yet you do not even know the difference between semi-automatic and automatic.
I'm saying do some research for yourself. You will better understand your opposition and, if nothing else, you will be able to have a conversation on the topic using correct information. Much like the people at FOX should have played Mass Effect to actually see what they were damning to hell. Might have changed their position slightly, and who knows? Actually learning about what you are damning might change your position slightly, too.
It's purpose is what it's designed to do... So a "high velocity" cartridge's purpose is to be used in conjunction with a firearm to project a bullet at super-sonic speed to accurately place the bullet at a desired point.
Fair enough, i argued myself in the corner here, you are correct.
Except these people were using their firearms for hunting until the monarch went too far. Ya know, razing villages, raping their families, starving their children. Monarchs just didn't want the playing field to be fair so their knights could continue to run people through with impunity. Kindda like the shit that had the US colonies rebelling against England's monarch back in the day. The colonies also used their hunting firearms.
Hunting is killing of animals for food, sport or just because you got archaic rituals of flag waving (im talking about people becoming a man only after you murder defenceless animals rituals).
I can understand hunting for food back in those days, but thats about it.
What?
"Don't talk about things you don't know about.
It is a semi-automatic shotgun..."
Look up the word "semi-automatic". I'm serious. Become informed because at this point you are not, and it is blatantly obvious. The only automatic shotgun I'm aware of in the world is the AA12 and that thing is not available for legal civilian ownership.
Yes, i did type automatic when i wanted to type semi-automatic. the horror. The point still stands.
So explain those guns made specifically for match shooting. Such as in the Olympics...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_at_the_Summer_Olympics (list of events)
Or how most civilian guns never kill, much less get pointed at, a human being.
A gun can be used to kill, but that is not all it can do.
Exceptions being used for generalization. we have gone full circle now havent we?
So explain to me this "very strict" regulation you speak of. Because the cars themselves have to adhere to US DOT (Department of Transportation) standards. Firearms have to adhere to the USC (US Constitution) and the Gun Control Act of 1968, and that is just the safety standards (there are more laws that limit firearms in one way or another, such as my beloved USC 9.22-R). Police do not have the ability to "check up" on a car any time they want. If they can safely get the plate they can get what is in the system, but they can do that for the federally required serial number on firearms too. An officer can not stop a vehicle without reasonable cause. You know what reasonable cause an officer needs to have to stop you, secure a firearm you are carrying legally, and run your information? None, because it is the person carrying responsibility to keep their hands in view and declare that they are carrying a firearm if a law enforcement official so much as walks up to you to say "hi". The officer then pats you down, secures the firearm, runs your ID and serial number of the gun just because. Can you imagine the shitstorm if cops just started pulling people over and saying, "Yeah, you did nothing wrong. I just want to make sure you can drive this car."
Mental and physical evaluation, variuos restriction, rigid mandatory courses and examination (and the exams are so hard 90% on the street if put into one would fail them without preparation). Constant and random checks from road police officers, speed limits, driving limits and ton of other rules and exceptions made for cars.
An officer can stop a car with a cause of "i wanted to see if he carries documents" and that is cause enough to stop your car. Now i wasnt aware that it is required by law to tell every officer that you have a weapon that you meet, thats interesting one.
As for "oh no criminal record all right heres your gun." Your ignorance on the subject matter is showing again. You must pass a federal background check, meet the age requirement for the firearm (18 for long guns, 21 for handguns), meet state requirements if applicable, and of course actually pay for the thing. You really need to do some research bud, if for no other reason than to have stronger points.
Federal background check checks for previuos crimes. Age restriction is the only one in some states. Do tell what restrictions do people have.
(also yeah if you put a pricetag as a restriction your really looking for one now)
I asked could. As in if the situation went to the other side of the spectrum. If one out of three people were legally caring firearms in the US do you really think that would have no affect on crime in the form of crime prevention? You know, criminals stopping and saying, " I have a 1/3 chance of getting shot, do I really want to do this? Am I feeling lucky?"
If the mugger is a street mugger that already proves his reasoning does not go that far to begin with. Also somone posted stats that said 30% of americans own weapons, so you almost got that one already. not concealed carrying though.
If the crime was going to be a rape or a murder the gun would have stopped it, no? If the crime was going to be a shooting spree the gun would have stopped it, no? If cops, or armed citizens, had been at the elementary, this fucker walked in with his guns, and he was shot to death would the headline read "School Shooting Massacre" or "Gunman Slain Before School Shooting Spree"?
No. If the crime was a murder, you would have murdered the murderer, but he has comited the murder already. Rape i can perhaps give you as that takes lnog enough that you can stop him before he finishes the crime. There was security guard in that elementary, did he stop him? He wasnt armed though if i remember correctly. The shooting spree would still happen, likely involving dead people who rushed to shoot the guy. Its not like we havent seen that before when a panicknig civilian shot a bunch of other civilians who he though was the shooter, when the real shooter was hiding behind them.
And you heard it here first folks! Cops do not stop crime, they only react to it. To be blunt, a dead criminal commits no more crimes.
Nah, no fame needed. You heard it a 3 decades ago, in D.C. supreme court, when police deparment won the case, with conclusion being that Police is there to respond to crime, not to prevent it.
?fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.?
Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/just-dial-911-the-myth-of-police-protection#ixzz2m2ei3eag
(it has decent sources)
A dead criminal have already commited a crime to become a criminal. I guess thats an argument for death penalty though, after all, dead criminal commits no more crimes, so just kill all of them.
Hunting is killing of animals for food, sport or just because you got archaic rituals of flag waving (im talking about people becoming a man only after you murder defenceless animals rituals).
I can understand hunting for food back in those days, but thats about it.
"Hunting is killing of animals for food, (trophy hunting is hunting for) sport (and is illegal in most states) or just because you got archaic rituals of flag waving (bonding time...?) (im talking about people becoming a man only after you murder defenceless animals rituals)."
If you had ever actually been hunting you would know that animals are not defenseless. Most animals people hunt are prey animals to begin with so they have acute vision, hearing, and smell. If you, as the hunter, don't approach the situation skillfully you will not bag any game. I say most because some people also hunt predatory animals. Not only do they have similar vision, smell, and hearing to the prey animals but if you fuck up they will fuck you up.
As for "(im talking about people becoming a man only after you murder defenceless animals rituals)"... I took my first deer an age seven. I was not considered a "man" afterwards, I was simply considered a competent hunter and marksman. I got to know my father and my uncle better and we got a lot of tasty food out of it. We hunt for the meat, like most do, and some still have substantive living arrangements. Those are the people who still hunt what they eat.
So don't just shrug off hunting in this day and age because people still eat that meat. Also, those animals hunted have a hell of a lot more sporting chance than any animal destined for a grocery store.
Yes, i did type automatic when i wanted to type semi-automatic. the horror. The point still stands.
Yes the horror, because in this case it is the difference between being civilian legal and being in possession of Mil Spec hardware not for civilian use/possession. Also in terms of the conversation, hunting/ shooting trap or skeet with a full auto is not defendable at all while hunting/ shooting trap or skeet with a semi-auto is very common.
So your point was... what then? That birdshot can't be used in a semi-automatic shotgun? I say again, do some research. Better yet, I'll bring the research to you.
This is a chart detailing the "gain" (as you put it, grain btw), actually called the "dram equivalence" when dealing with shotgun shells, and the respective velocity based on shot weight.
I shoot Federal "Game Load" 12gauge (diameter), 2 3/4in (length), #6 shot (predetermined numerical system for picking the best shell for what you are doing) when I hunt small game. Now here is the REALLY important info for our discussion, these shells have 3 1/4 dram EQ (amount of powder in shell) and 1oz shot. so if you look on the chart you find 3 1/4 dram EQ on the left in grey and 1oz up top written in red. You will see that the velocity is 1,290fps. That is how fast the shot comes out of the barrel.
When I load for bear, both literally (I love the outdoors and in Alaska bears are a threat for different reasons depending on the season) and figuratively (shotguns are by and far the best home defense guns), I use buckshot (several larger projectiles in a single shell) and slugs (one large projectile, much like a conventional bullet). The slugs are 12gauge, 3in, "Max" dram EQ, 1oz. Velocity comes out to 1,675fps. The Buckshot is 12gauge, 3in, 000 (predetermined size for buckshot much like #6 is for birdshot). The buckshot states that it's velocity is 1,225fps so we can estimate that the shell has approx. 3 3/4 dram EQ and the shot weighs approx. 1 5/8oz.
So the birdshot has a slightly lower dram EQ than the buckshot, substantially lower shot weight, and a higher velocity... If nothing else, they seem to be fairly equal on stats. So here is another, of the 1,000+ rounds of various dram EQ birdshot (as low as 2 3/4) I have put through my gun it has only failed to cycle three, I said 3, times. There was one failure to fire (primer was dead on the shell/ shell's fault) and two failure to fully eject (the shots sounded odd so I believe the shells did not have a full powder load/ shell's fault).
If you need more proof just look up semi-auto trap/skeet shotguns.
Exceptions being used for generalization. we have gone full circle now havent we?
Not in the slightest. Your point was that guns are made to kill, and these guns directly disprove that statement. That's the problem with blanket statements. One exception completely disproves everything you said.
Mental and physical evaluation, variuos restriction, rigid mandatory courses and examination (and the exams are so hard 90% on the street if put into one would fail them without preparation). Constant and random checks from road police officers, speed limits, driving limits and ton of other rules and exceptions made for cars.
An officer can stop a car with a cause of "i wanted to see if he carries documents" and that is cause enough to stop your car. Now i wasnt aware that it is required by law to tell every officer that you have a weapon that you meet, thats interesting one.
Where the hell did you get your license? I didn't have a psych eval before I was allowed to get mine. Various restrictions is vague enough that I feel I covered that in my statement. The driver's ed courses are neither ridged not mandatory. The test can be passed on the first try by guessing because you can get three wrong and there are usually only two or three "number" (insurance, fines, jail time) questions on the test. Everything else is common sense. Again, where have you seen "constant and random checks from road police officers"? At DUI checkpoints perhaps, but I haven't seen one of those in years and years. A speed limit is a limiting law, much like the limiting laws guns have. What exactly is a "driving limit"? I have never heard of it/them. And guns don't have a ton of laws...?
I tried to put one section out of the USC, 9.22-R to be exact, in a spoiler bar and this is what it told me, "spoiler text too long - please edit to reduce". So I'll just drop a link.
[link]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922[/link]
This statement is false. "An officer can stop a car with a cause of "i wanted to see if he carries documents" and that is cause enough to stop your car."
"A traffic stop, commonly called being pulled over, is a temporary detention of a driver of a vehicle by police to investigate a possible crime or minor violation of law. In constitutional law in the United States, a traffic stop is considered to be a subset of the Terry stop; the standard set by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio regarding temporary detentions requires only reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur.
...
Typically Police must either have probable cause for a search or get a warrant from a judge specifying a particular individual by name or get a "John Doe warrant" with a specific description."
If the cop doesn't have probable cause to think you don't have a license then they can't stop you for that. And before you start up, a feeling is not probable cause. Someone who looks far too young to have a license is a cause. Someone who looks like they might be old enough to have a provisionary license but is driving alone is cause. However, if the officer uses these claims in court they open themselves to accusations of profiling. So officers need something sustentative that they can catch on tape so they have a reason to pull you over and then checking documentation is not a problem because you are already being detained.
What is so interesting about it? Did you know that in most states you need to be issued a license to carry a concealed firearm? The mandatory training course will cost you about $500, the ammo (as you have to provide your own) will cost you between $250 and $350 depending on the brand, caliber, and if you can find a sale, and the permit itself will cost you approx. $100. So the total is between $850 and $950. The police can deny your permit for literally no reason and you don't get any of that money back.
So like I have repeatedly said, become informed.
This applies to me...
[link]http://dps.alaska.gov/statewide/PermitsLicensing/permit.aspx[/link]
And this is a very thorough description of the different CWPs (Concealed Weapon Permits) and governing laws in the US...
[link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Unrestricted[/link]
I did come up with another good example, the aftermath of the Boston bombing. Even though there was a bombing attack people were getting pissed that the police were basically doing warrantless searches because these dangerous fugitives were on the loose. They didn't do anything wrong and they were being treated like suspects because of events. That is what it is like to be a person who legally conceals a firearm every time you deal with law enforcement. You did everything right, but you are treated as a criminal regardless.
Federal background check checks for previuos crimes. Age restriction is the only one in some states. Do tell what restrictions do people have.
(also yeah if you put a pricetag as a restriction your really looking for one now)
The Gun Control Act passed by Congress in 1968 lists felons, illegal aliens, and other codified persons as prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. During the application process for concealed carry states carry out thorough background checks to prevent these individuals from obtaining permits. Additionally the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act created an FBI maintained system in 1994 for instantly checking the backgrounds of potential firearms buyers in an effort to prevent these individuals from obtaining weapons.
Age restrictions are US wide because they are Federal law.
Look at the links above for SOME of the restrictions.
Guns are a hefty investment. So how is that NOT a limiting factor? I can't buy a sports car because I can't afford it. I have the license and I know where I can get one, but I don't have the cash. That shotgun I own... It is a sports car of guns, and it had a price to match.
If the mugger is a street mugger that already proves his reasoning does not go that far to begin with. Also somone posted stats that said 30% of americans own weapons, so you almost got that one already. not concealed carrying though.
First, assuming that muggers are dumb is a fallacy. Perhaps there are a lot of muggers because they know few people have the means to defend themselves. So, 30% of Americans own firearms or 30% of Americans own one or a combination of guns, swords, bows, baseball bats, rolls of quarters, knifes, pens, tazers, pepper spray, martial arts training, ect, ect.? "Weapons" is an all inclusive term, you have to be more specific. Assuming you were talking about firearms, that is the people who own one or more not the numbers of people who legally carry a handgun. That number is quite a bit smaller.
No. If the crime was a murder, you would have murdered the murderer, but he has comited the murder already. Rape i can perhaps give you as that takes lnog enough that you can stop him before he finishes the crime.
What? Are you telling me if someone pulls a knife and says they are going to gut you and you shoot them YOU are the murderer? So you are in fact saying that the gun would have stopped the crime of murder or you would be dead? That was kindda my point. Ya know, bout using guns to stop crime and then you saying that a gun couldn't stop a crime. The rape thing is horrendous too. Why wouldn't the woman just shoot the fucker? If someone tried to rape a woman and got shot for his trouble did SHE not prevent the crime of rape with her gun?
There was security guard in that elementary, did he stop him? He wasnt armed though if i remember correctly.
No he didn't, just like ALL of the other unarmed people there.
The shooting spree would still happen, likely involving dead people who rushed to shoot the guy. Its not like we havent seen that before when a panicknig civilian shot a bunch of other civilians who he though was the shooter, when the real shooter was hiding behind them.
Do provide some source with that conjecture. If you actually had firearm training instead of being an "armchair general" you would know that you do not rush to confront a gunman and you must confirm your target. If you are inside the building and the hostile is still outside you find a position that provides good cover and visibility, such as a doorway coming out of the front office, and ambush him/her. If you are inside and the gunman is inside you need to determine the position of the gunman and try to flank him/her unless their attention is else ware allowing you to close in from the rear. If you are on the outside and the gunman is outside you take cover behind a vehicle's engine block or rear axle (as the body of a vehicle will not stop most rounds) and then make a decision. If the gunman is too far away for accurate shots and there are no bystanders in danger, suppress the target to try to get him/her to flee or to engage you while you have the superior position. This will buy time for the school to lock down, cops to arrive, and might draw the gunman into range for accurate fire. If the gunman is in range for accurate fire try to line up a shot before (s)he knows you are there, you must ensure that if the round over penetrates (goes straight through the fucker) or you miss that the round will not strike a bystander. If you can't get a clean shot regardless of range because of bystanders you must reposition, wait for a clean shot, or disengage completely. If the hostile is inside and you are outside you must decide if you can do any good. If you know for a fact where the gunman is (such as (s)he just entered the building you could get on the wall and follow it to the entry way so you are not exposed and take the shot. If the gunman is not in view you need to ask yourself if you have the training to peruse. Home defense courses teach basic room clearing so if you feel confident enough in your training you could follow the sounds of the gunshots and attempt to confront the gunman from a superior position, but there is a reason cops and troop clear buildings in teams. It is very easy to get caught out of cover, have a hostile in your blind spot, or simply have some bad luck during clearing operations.
Nah, no fame needed. You heard it a 3 decades ago, in D.C. supreme court, when police deparment won the case, with conclusion being that Police is there to respond to crime, not to prevent it.
?fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.?
Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/just-dial-911-the-myth-of-police-protection#ixzz2m2ei3eag
(it has decent sources)
You do realize you took that out of context right? That was saying that cops are not bodyguards. The person in question wanted the cops to assign a police escort to them because they believed their life was in danger but had no proof. The judge ruled that police protection was not required by law as this person had brought a case against the PD that they were basically failing to protect and serve. Now if you called the cops and told them you saw some suspicious looking folks hanging around a bank they would dispatch an officer to check it out. If you call the cops and tell them you believe someone is up to no good just parked out in the street out front of your house they will send a patrol car past to check it out. These are cases of police acting as a preventive measure. You know all the cop that get assigned to high profile functions and events? The simple act of them being there is a preventive measure.
A dead criminal have already commited a crime to become a criminal. I guess thats an argument for death penalty though, after all, dead criminal commits no more crimes, so just kill all of them.
Not what I said or where I was going with it. You said guns don't stop crime and I made the sarcastic remark that the dead criminal will be unable to commit any more crimes. So the gun would have, in fact, stopped any and all crimes that criminal would have committed from that point on, and statistically speaking violent criminals are habitually criminal. Meaning they just keep on being criminals and often times escalate their crimes until they are stopped. I shed no tears for anyone legitimately killed in self defense.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
